It wasn't solely because there was no need for Batman, he could have still been doing patrols and the like but the risk would be too great. Yes, he's the goddamn Batman and he could find ways to escape from the police, but with however many police chasing him regularly it becomes more and more likely that he would be caught, and the more police chase him the more opportunities there are for crime.

Which is bull. TDK was always saying Batman can endure and take that kind of thing if Gotham needs him. They made it so Gotham didn't need him which was boring.

Bane's plan was lame, too. His siege was just a load of grand standing crap that could be skipped and just blow the damn city up. In the end he'd still have a dead city.

"So we'll hunt him because he can take it. Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dark Knight".

Gordon was saying Batman can be seen as an outlaw and Dent as a hero. Not that Batman is done in Gotham. Gordon didn't expect him to leave either when he saw him in the hospital. He said they were in it together and then he was gone.

Which is bull. TDK was always saying Batman can endure and take that kind of thing if Gotham needs him. They made it so Gotham didn't need him which was boring.

Bane's plan was lame, too. His siege was just a load of grand standing crap that could be skipped and just blow the damn city up. In the end he'd still have a dead city.

Gotham never needed Batman to take down thugs. System was corrupt and in BB & TDK they finished orginized crime in Gotham with good officials, police and judges. Dent act even hit them harder.They were ending it in begining of TDK if Joker wouldn't kill all their plans. That was the plan of Batman from the beginning. Ending corruption.That's why he was working with Gordon,Dent,Rachel etc.He is not some vigilante want to beat guys and don't care about rest.

Bane didn't do it because he wanted Bruce to suffer for all the things he has done. He is a torturer. They weren't just fullfilling Ra's Al Ghul's destiny. He quite explained his motives in the pit to broken Bruce.

I was definitely fearing the worst after reading that they had re-dubbed Hardy's voice for the Prologue...but after finally seeing the film, I have to say that personally I was relieved; it wasn't bad at all IMO. I liked the original mechanized quality from December, but I don't feel that the new version detracted from the impact in any way. But that's probably because I was expecting it to be horrendous. I can imagine that hearing it for the first time without that knowledge was a little jarring for people - it's all just a matter of perspective.

Bane's voice makes me think of Mike Tyson in his prime. Tyson's voice was so comical and easy to make fun of; it didn't suit him at all. You can make fun of Bane's inflections, the high pitches, the odd delivery, the weird aristocratic English quality, etc. but he would still physically destroy anyone in his path. I think it's what makes him all the more menacing. For me it's a perfect fit.....even in the Prologue.

"So we'll hunt him because he can take it. Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dark Knight".

Gordon was saying Batman can be seen as an outlaw and Dent as a hero. Not that Batman is done in Gotham. Gordon didn't expect him to leave either when he saw him in the hospital. He said they were in it together and then he was gone.

It sucked.

You're right, and that's how we were meant to understand the line in that context.

But in the greater overall context, Batman truly wasn't needed because their lie actually worked even better than either of them had imagined it could. I thought it was an interesting and unexpected development. Plus I still choose to believe Batman wasn't completely inactive for 8 years, as he didn't become a recluse until 3 years before TDKR and he had a new cave that Alfred implies he had used before. Still room for some covert activity and keeping an eye on things in the Batcave.

"So we'll hunt him because he can take it. Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dark Knight".

Gordon was saying Batman can be seen as an outlaw and Dent as a hero. Not that Batman is done in Gotham. Gordon didn't expect him to leave either when he saw him in the hospital. He said they were in it together and then he was gone.

It sucked.

What's the point of blaming Batman for being a bad guy if he is going to do heroic things and destroy the lie they created in first place? It would work worse if killer of Harvey Dent was roaming free in streets of Gotham.

What's the point of Batman hunting petty criminals on street and probably took entire police force in city on himself. Police can arrest small time criminals easily by themselves.

"So we'll hunt him because he can take it. Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dark Knight".

Gordon was saying Batman can be seen as an outlaw and Dent as a hero. Not that Batman is done in Gotham. Gordon didn't expect him to leave either when he saw him in the hospital. He said they were in it together and then he was gone.

It sucked.

Yes, Gordon saying it. Was Bruce going to be Batman for all that time because of something Gordon said to his son, including the thing about 'This is how crazy Batman's made Gotham', etc.?

Since Day 1, Bruce has been planning to quit at some point. Like in BB, Alfred asks him if he's coming back to Gotham for long, and he responds 'As long as it takes'. It would have been foolish of him to remain active.

That's fine, but it's purely subjective to try and quantify what kind of story is worth telling and which isn't. That's why these debates go on and on I suppose. Obviously people who liked the movie were able to see value in the story it set out to tell.

"Now I'm sure the day won't come where you no longer need Batman"

"I think you and I are destined to do this forever"

"Endure, Master Wayne. Take it. They'll hate you for it but that's the point of Batman. He can be the outcast. He can make the choice that no one else can make. The right choice"

"He's the hero Gotham deserves but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him because he can take it"

TDK was about as subtle as a sledgehammer in saying Batman was not going anywhere and he would be around to take Gotham's hatred.

I think a Bruce who's been enduring that is far more interesting than one who quit and lived like a recluse in a crime free city.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uroboric Forms

It wasn't solely because there was no need for Batman, he could have still been doing patrols and the like but the risk would be too great. Yes, he's the goddamn Batman and he could find ways to escape from the police, but with however many police chasing him regularly it becomes more and more likely that he would be caught, and the more police chase him the more opportunities there are for crime.

That's ridiculous. In Batman Begins Gordon said Loeb set up a massive task force to catch him. Did you see Batman quitting because he was going to get chased by the Cops?

The whole point TDK broke it's back saying was he can take being hunted. He can endure. He was going to be around, loved or hated.

TDKR just chose to make Dent's impact so great that crime was non existent and Bruce retired the night Dent was killed.

Btw if Gordon is dumb enough to waste all of his man power on one man, and ignoring other crime then he's not worthy of the job. Only that moron Foley focused all of his man power on Batman in that chase.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmc

Because apparently Bruce needed to be punished, and doing it too soon after getting beaten down just wouldn't feel right.

Oh of course. I forgot

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

I think a Bruce who's been enduring that is far more interesting than one who quit and lived like a recluse in a crime free city

I've already posted and talked about how I didn't enjoy the 8 year exile plot enough already but I'll just point out that with your comment, another reason this would've been that much better is because hypothetically speaking, just make-believe and pretend that Christopher Nolan wanted to come back (or the next director wanted to connect his films loosely) to these movies it leaves open so many possibilities about what could happen in those 8 years as Batman if they chose a prequel if you want to call it that. We all know Nolan is pretty non-linear anyways so yeah. Not to mention the fact that by the time we reached Bruce in TDKR, he'd be a hobbled 40 year-old man. Then it's like, damn, Bruce has been busy. I wonder what's been happening during all those years?

Gah, I'm trying to not let it irritate me so much because it's still the best comic book trilogy but what the hell, I can't get over how much that plot bugged the heck out of me.

__________________

"Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today."
James Dean

That's ridiculous. In Batman Begins Gordon said Loeb set up a massive task force to catch him. Did you see Batman quitting because he was going to get chased by the Cops?

The whole point TDK broke it's back saying was he can take being hunted. He can endure. He was going to be around, loved or hated.

TDKR just chose to make Dent's impact so great that crime was non existent and Bruce retired the night Dent was killed.

Btw if Gordon is dumb enough to waste all of his man power on one man, and ignoring other crime then he's not worthy of the job. Only that moron Foley focused all of his man power on Batman in that chase.

I specifically avoided saying 'all the cops on Batman' as Foley did. As for Alfred 'Endure Master Wayne, blah blah blah' that was during the Joker's reign of terror. Once the police had more of a grasp over the city's crime once the major loose ends were tied up at the end of TDK, Batman wasn't needed as much as he was at it would be too great a risk to go out when the city's police are targeting him more than ever so that he can take down a few meth dealers, which the police are capable of handling.

"Endure, Master Wayne. Take it. They'll hate you for it but that's the point of Batman. He can be the outcast. He can make the choice that no one else can make. The right choice"

"He's the hero Gotham deserves but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him because he can take it"

TDK was about as subtle as a sledgehammer in saying Batman was not going anywhere and he would be around to take Gotham's hatred.

I think a Bruce who's been enduring that is far more interesting than one who quit and lived like a recluse in a crime free city.

The whole endure line from Alfred in TDK is pretty fascinating because Batman didn't really make the right choice in taking the blame for Dent's crime. Rather, it created a lie that lasted for eight years.

I wasn't sure what to make of the shelved Batman plot before the movie. I was hoping for the best when I realized this was the direction it was going in last year. But in hindsight the story of a man that retired as Batman who unretires just to retire again at the end of the film is probably not really a story that needed to be told. In BB and TDK I felt like the script conveyed what was going on in Bruce's head better than TDKR did--because they wanted to make a lot of what Bruce and Batman does a secret and a swerve. It still bothers me.

"Endure, Master Wayne. Take it. They'll hate you for it but that's the point of Batman. He can be the outcast. He can make the choice that no one else can make. The right choice"

"He's the hero Gotham deserves but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him because he can take it"

TDK was about as subtle as a sledgehammer in saying Batman was not going anywhere and he would be around to take Gotham's hatred.

I think a Bruce who's been enduring that is far more interesting than one who quit and lived like a recluse in a crime free city.

That's ridiculous. In Batman Begins Gordon said Loeb set up a massive task force to catch him. Did you see Batman quitting because he was going to get chased by the Cops?

The whole point TDK broke it's back saying was he can take being hunted. He can endure. He was going to be around, loved or hated.

See, I think it's more about symbols and how he could be a symbol for whatever the city needed. And we know this series has hammered home the idea of symbols being able to outlast men. Even without him physically around, the symbol of Batman still endured as a symbol of what had gone wrong in Gotham...the lawlessness, the chaos, the escalation that he had inadvertently brought onto the city. Bruce took that symbol and hoisted all of Dent's evil onto to it in an effort to uphold the public's faith in the system. Dent's death galvanizing the city into cleaning up is the best possible outcome for what Batman was trying to accomplish with his sacrifice.

When watching TDK recently, I found the imagery of that bat-signal being axed by Gordon even more powerful knowing that Batman ends up disappearing for a long time. The signal is such an old and iconic element of the mythos that represents when the city must turn to Batman to solve their problems. I definitely see its destruction as a foreshadowing of a time when the city wouldn't need him.

Exactly. The first retirement with Bruce miserable helps give his real retirement at the end more weight and meaning, since he's finally at peace. It shows that even though he hung up the cowl, he still very much felt that inner need to be Batman and was just waiting for everything to go to crap again, for someone like Bane to come along that the city couldn't handle on their own.

Only he gets more than he bargained for, and gets stripped of everything. Humbled to the point where he has to accept his frailty and learn to fear death again. It's only once he overcomes his issues as Bruce Wayne that he is able to go out on his own terms as Batman. Deshi Deshi Basara Basara, etc. etc. etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnarTheGreat

In BB and TDK I felt like the script conveyed what was going on in Bruce's head better than TDKR did--because they wanted to make a lot of what Bruce and Batman does a secret and a swerve. It still bothers me.

In BB, I agree we're more in Bruce's head. In TDK though, I think the whole sonar device thing was played out very sneakily. We don't see how Bruce gets it done, he just tells Lucius he's reassigned R&D for a government communications project and he's playing it close to the chest. We never know exactly what he's up to until the machine is unveiled in Act 3. I thought Bruce fixing the autopilot in TDKR and faking his death was another instance of Bruce simply being ahead of everyone including the audience.

I've already posted and talked about how I didn't enjoy the 8 year exile plot enough already but I'll just point out that with your comment, another reason this would've been that much better is because hypothetically speaking, just make-believe and pretend that Christopher Nolan wanted to come back (or the next director wanted to connect his films loosely) to these movies it leaves open so many possibilities about what could happen in those 8 years as Batman if they chose a prequel if you want to call it that. We all know Nolan is pretty non-linear anyways so yeah. Not to mention the fact that by the time we reached Bruce in TDKR, he'd be a hobbled 40 year-old man. Then it's like, damn, Bruce has been busy. I wonder what's been happening during all those years?

Gah, I'm trying to not let it irritate me so much because it's still the best comic book trilogy but what the hell, I can't get over how much that plot bugged the heck out of me.

It's understandable that it irritated you. In hindsight Batman was only Batman for less than a year then hung up his cape.

I know it's Nolan vision, and I know his Batman did see his mission as having an ending eventually, but essentially it had TWO endings. It ended for 8 years and then a brief return before it ended again.

Batman should not have come to an end after TDK. That was not the message the movie was sending. I say again there was not a single person who saw that as a possibility after TDK came out. It wasn't until we heard that TDKR was set 8 years later were people asking was he Batman during those 8 years, and most of us were thinking he still was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uroboric Forms

I specifically avoided saying 'all the cops on Batman' as Foley did.

But that's the point. You assume, I emphasize the word assume, that the majority of the Police's resources would be wasted on Batman and thereby all other crime would be neglected under Gordon's watch.

You've no basis for that.

Quote:

As for Alfred 'Endure Master Wayne, blah blah blah' that was during the Joker's reign of terror.

Yes so?

Quote:

Once the police had more of a grasp over the city's crime once the major loose ends were tied up at the end of TDK, Batman wasn't needed as much as he was at it would be too great a risk to go out when the city's police are targeting him more than ever so that he can take down a few meth dealers, which the police are capable of handling.

You're talking about what happened after TDK, not what was in TDK itself, which is the whole problem. TDKR tells us Batman quit the night Dent died, and they made Batman redundant. They went against everything said in TDK. They made Gotham a crime free state and Bruce threw in the towel. That's what you think TDK was telling you was coming?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

See, I think it's more about symbols and how he could be a symbol for whatever the city needed.

Nothing about the symbol of Batman was referenced in these quotes. It was all about Bruce himself as Batman, NOT the idea of Batman. What those characters were specifically saying to him and his mission as Batman. Joker was not saying he found the symbol of Batman fun and will clash with forever. He was talking about Batman himself. Rachel was talking about Bruce always needing Batman and that's why she can't wait for him. Alfred was telling Bruce to endure because he can take it. Gordon was saying they would hunt Batman not the symbol because Batman can take it etc etc.

The only time symbols were dealt with in TDK was the contrast between Batman and Dent, and how Dent can be the symbol of hope a masked vigilante like Batman can never be.

Quote:

When watching TDK recently, I found the imagery of that bat-signal being axed by Gordon even more powerful knowing that Batman ends up disappearing for a long time.

I didn't. It would have been more powerful knowing Batman was still out there wanting to and needing to help Gotham, but Gordon can never call his friend to him using it.

Not that it's being smashed because now it's redundant and useless because Gotham's about to go into peace time.

Quote:

The signal is such an old and iconic element of the mythos that represents when the city must turn to Batman to solve their problems. I definitely see its destruction as a foreshadowing of a time when the city wouldn't need him.

No, the smashing of the signal was a foreshadowing that the city hated him. Listen to the dialogue when it's being smashed;

Everything that was said in that montage was relevant to what was happening in each scene. Batman talking about the truth not being good enough was done when Alfred burns Rachel's letter. Batman saying people need to have their faith rewarded was done when Lucius sees the sonar machine self destruct after he types in his name like Batman told him to etc.

The words said when the batsignal being smashed never implied or hinted in any way that it was the end of Batman's career. It was just said that he is now hated and will be chased.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

I like Bane's connection to the League of Shadows, but I'm not wild about its execution. I think the main issue with Bane’s portrayal is that while the film drew from KNIGHTFALL, BANE OF THE DEMON and LEGACY, it neglected to give Bane any real motivations of his own, and never really gave him anything to make him appear like a self made man in any real sense, and so he was pretty much tied to Ra's and the League and Talia. There wasn't that great, somewhat sympathetic, "I was born in Hell and made myself into the anti-Batman (or in this case, anti-society)" angle that the comics have.

Bane/Talia’s actual plan and Bane’s statements about freeing Gotham didn’t make a whole lot of sense and feel a bit like window dressing for a simple revenge plot, but I cannot deny their visual/story impact, what with the courts and the power reversals and all.

The problem with the eight year retirement is mainly that its brought about by a forced idea. The whole "Dent Act" and its specifics concept is so absurd that its difficult to take seriously.

I'm talking about seeing the ending in a new light after seeing TDKR. That's what I love in a sequel, when it makes you see things differently.

The city hating Batman and the city not needing Batman...those concepts needn't be mutually exclusive. I saw it exactly as you described from 2008 until last month. But it just adds a layer, for me personally. It's not about the dialogue, it's just about the pure symbolic power of the image. The very object that means "the city needs Batman" (but not "the city loves and worships Batman")...at the very least, it showed that Gotham was no longer going to be working with a vigilante in any kind of officially sanctioned way. So in a sense, Gordon destroying the signal is a symbolic act in and of itself, and is part of the winds of change in Gotham whether he knows it at the time or not. With the city's white knight gone, and the Batman having shown his "true colors" it forces the law to step up their game. When Gordon smashes that signal, I feel as if he's not just doing it as an act of anger against Batman...but as a display that the city can no longer trust or rely on a vigilante to fix itself, because the consequences are seen to be disastrous.

I'm not arguing that the Nolans knew the exact direction of the story when they made TDK. I'm just saying that I don't agree when people say the ending of TDK was ruined...I think they very sneakily took the story in an unexpected direction without contradicted anything in the ending, and in fact enhancing it IMO. I think there's a real nice causality chain at play from film to film in this franchise:

Widespread corruption in the law/system leads to Bruce deciding to become a hero: Batman.

Batman is a symbol that threatens the very idea of corruption.

Batman's actions lead to an escalation in criminal response: The Joker.

The Joker is a symbol that threatens the very idea of heroism.

Joker's actions lead to Batman deciding to become the villain.

Batman becoming the villain leads to an escalation in the law/the system.

I enjoy the symmetry of Batman's actions having unintended consequences that are always catching up with him. I also realize I've gone severely off-topic at this point...for this I am sorry

I like Bane's connection to the League of Shadows, but I'm not wild about its execution. I think the main issue with Bane’s portrayal is that while the film drew from KNIGHTFALL, BANE OF THE DEMON and LEGACY, it neglected to give Bane any real motivations of his own, and never really gave him anything to make him appear like a self made man in any real sense, and so he was pretty much tied to Ra's and the League and Talia. There wasn't that great, somewhat sympathetic, "I was born in Hell and made myself into the anti-Batman (or in this case, anti-society)" angle that the comics have.

Bane/Talia’s actual plan and Bane’s statements about freeing Gotham didn’t make a whole lot of sense and feel a bit like window dressing for a simple revenge plot, but I cannot deny their visual/story impact, what with the courts and the power reversals and all.

The problem with the eight year retirement is mainly that its brought about by a forced idea. The whole "Dent Act" and its specifics concept is so absurd that its difficult to take seriously.

TDKR had lots of ideas like those that could have been good but were done really sloppily and badly.

I've already posted and talked about how I didn't enjoy the 8 year exile plot enough already but I'll just point out that with your comment, another reason this would've been that much better is because hypothetically speaking, just make-believe and pretend that Christopher Nolan wanted to come back (or the next director wanted to connect his films loosely) to these movies it leaves open so many possibilities about what could happen in those 8 years as Batman if they chose a prequel if you want to call it that. We all know Nolan is pretty non-linear anyways so yeah. Not to mention the fact that by the time we reached Bruce in TDKR, he'd be a hobbled 40 year-old man. Then it's like, damn, Bruce has been busy. I wonder what's been happening during all those years?

Gah, I'm trying to not let it irritate me so much because it's still the best comic book trilogy but what the hell, I can't get over how much that plot bugged the heck out of me.

Nobody would have believed Nolan would retire Batman for 8 years after TDK unless we heard it from him. It's too stupid to be believed unless you've seen the proof for yourself.